OXFAM IN ACTIONEconomic Justice: Natural Resource Management (NRM) Baseline Assessment, October 2013

INTRODUCTIONEconomic Justice (EJ) is one of the thematic priorities under Oxfam India’s (OIN) Strategy for 2010-15. The change goal of the EJ portfolio is “more men and women will realize their right to secure and sustainable livelihoods”. Ensuring rights over natural resources; proving the viability of Small-holder Agriculture; and reducing impact of climate change on the poor, are the main programming areas within OIN’s EJ priority. The current programme on Natural Resource

EJ-NRM | NO. 2 | SEPTEMBER, 2015

OIN Programme on Natural Resource Management

GOAL► Target community has improved quality of life, having

control of the natural resources they are dependent on.

Objectives► Ensure government accountability on implementing

the Forest Rights Act (FRA), 2006 for restoring the customary rights to forest-land and control over forest resources.

► Empower communities with legal provisions to secure their rights against land alienation and diversion esp. for mining leases. This should include private and public lands on which poor people are dependent for their livelihoods.

► Build pressure for convergence of government schemes for lands where FRA rights have been settled.

OUTCOMES► Enhancing capacities of poor people to actualize their

rights over natural resources.

► Leading to improved livelihoods through effective implementation of Forest Rights Act, 2006 (program and advocacy at state and national level)

► Strengthening networks and alliances for demanding pro-poor legislations such as the Mines & Minerals Development & Regulation (MMDR) and Land Acquisition

Resettlement and Rehabilitation (LARR) legislations-having a bearing on rights to natural resources (Advocacy).

► Building capacities of partners and affected communities on these laws and other legal statutes.

Project states► Chhattisgarh, Odisha , Jharkhand and Maharashtra

Priorities► Securing tenurial rights and access of forest dependent

poor over land and forest resources through the implementation of the FRA, 2006.

► Strengthening forest-based livelihoods within FRA areas through supporting sustainable Non-timber forest products (NTFP) models

► Accessing livelihood schemes at the local level and to bring about convergence between different ministries and schemes for secure livelihood for the tribal poor.

► Evidence based policy advocacy to bring about pro-poor legislations on Mines Minerals (Development & Regulation) Bill 2011 (MMDR) and The Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation & Resettlement Bill, 2011 (LARR)

► Capacity building of affected communities on their rights within the legislations.

Management (NRM) aims at helping communities to have greater control of the natural resources they depend on. The programme focuses on strengthening community level institutions, networks and alliances for effective advocacy towards realizing the rights provided through relevant legal frameworks. At the same time, it also supports programme partners in enhancing communities’ own ability to access their rights and entitlements.

2

BASELINE OBJECTIVES & METHODOLOGYObjectives OIN undertook a baseline study of its NRM related programme in 20131. The specific objectives of the baseline were:

To assess household (HH) level information on issues related to rights under FRA

Extent of utilization/coverage of government schemes in project areas (HH and partner level)

Degree of land alienation due to mining and other development projects.

Review the linkages between ground situation and advocacy and implementation strategies at the state and national level by partners.

To assess partners' current capacities, good practices, support received from Oxfam and their expectations in this regard.

The strengths and gaps of the Mining Network - Mines Minerals and People (MMP) secretariat (of which Oxfam is 50% funder) in advocacy around the MMDR Bill.

3

Table 1: National Baseline NRM: Sample distribution

Category

States

Total

Jharkhand Odisha Chattisgarh

HH 665 327 1161 2153

PRI 32 16 46 94

FRC 60 32 90 182

District level 18 12 14 44

NGO 3 2 6 11

1 Partnerships in Odisha was started in 2010 while in Chhattisgarh and Jharkhand the programme/partnerships started in late 2011.2 In Maharashtra, end-line impact assessment was conducted since it was the last year of the programme in the state.

Methodology The baseline study used quasi-experimental pre-test post-test design using qualitative and quantitative techniques. It aimed to capture the current level of knowledge, attitude, practice and the process adopted at community level for:

1) access to forest rights under FRA;

2) information and access to government schemes in FRA areas, and

3) assessment of land alienation and displacement due to mining and other development projects.

Household questionnaire, open-ended customized questionnaires, checklists for Panchayati Raj Institution (PRI) representatives, Forest Rights Committee (FRC) members, and district level officers (District Collector, District Forest Officer and District Tribal officer) and Non-Government Organisations (NGOs) partners were the main instruments to collect quantitative and qualitative data. Primary data was collected through a cadre of trained investigators in each state.

CoverageAltogether 2153 HH were covered in three out of the four project states2 through quantitative method along with 331 stakeholders through qualitative methods. Sample distribution by state is as follows:

4

Community LevelProject participants are largely uneducated, belong to excluded communities, and depend on forest products for sustenance: Nearly 67% of HHs covered under baseline belonged to Schedule Tribes (STs) and PVTGs3 among ST, 10% were Schedule Caste (SC), 21% were Other Backward Class (OBC), and 3% belonged to other social groups, including minority groups (Muslims and Christians). In terms of educational levels, about 42% of all HH members (above 6 yrs) have never attended school, and only 5% were educated up to senior secondary level or above. Also, only 3% of HH members had migrated to some other place for livelihood.

Nearly 81% HHs have own land, 15% have leased land, 55% have land without any title and 7% were landless. However, only 5% women had land titles on their own name. Only 10% of HHs had benefitted from any govt. scheme on farm-land, of which, about one third attributed this to Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA). 83% of HH accessed BPL4 provisions. In terms of livelihood, 72% HH practice agriculture on their own land as their primary occupation, 5% depended on share

KEY FINDINGScropping and casual non-agriculture wage labour. Only about 2% noted depending on Non-Timber Forest Products (NTFP). However, about 86% of respondent HHs depended on NTFPs as secondary source of income. Dependence on NTFP increases in lean seasons and in years of drought. Wage labour including MGNREGA also came across as a major source (for 76 % HHs) of additional HH income.

Awareness on FRA is high but formal orientation/training on FRA provisions is low: Nearly 72% of HH respondents were aware of FRA through sources such as PRI (PRI representatives, gram sabha) and NGOs (41% each). Relatively low awareness of FRA was noted among Muslims and SCs (58% each). However, only one-fourth of the respondents were aware of the amendments to FRA.

On the other hand, only 23% of respondents (or their family member) had received any formal orientation on FRA. The orientation was mainly given by NGO (74%) while community based organisations and panchayats accounted for only 9% of all orientation/trainings on FRA. By social groups, only 18% of ST received orientation about FRA compared to SC (47%), OBC (29%) and other social groups (39%). The baseline found that such variation in coverage (by social groups) was the least where NGOs provided orientation/trainings.

FRA implementation has positive, though partial gains for communities: Cattle grazing in forest areas was reported by 85% of respondents and about 48% also reported

3 Particularly vulnerable tribal groups (PVTGs)

4 Below the Poverty Line (BPL) is the benchmark being used by the planning commission of India to estimate povertylevels. The BPL proportion for all India is about 22% (25.7% in rural areas and 13.7% in urban areas). Source: http://planningcommission.nic.in/news/pre_pov2307.pdf

5

fishing from water bodies under forest areas. According to participant HHs, FRA has a positive influence on incomes (by selling NTFP/fish). For 65% of people who collects and sells NTFP, annual income from these activities was less than Rs 5000. People also feel that FRA provisions have resulted in better relations between community and forest officials (termed as good behaviour and granting permission for NTFP collection and fishing in forest areas).

Awareness of Individual Forest Rights (IFR) is considerably high while access to it is very low: About 89% of HH respondents were aware of Individual Forest Rights (IFR) but only 16% had IFR titles. Of those who had IFR titles under FRA, only 8% were joint title holders (husband/wife). Awareness level regarding criteria for application (for forest rights) and procedure for filing IFR claims was moderate. Information about the agency to which application should be submitted was particularly low. Awareness of IFR is much higher among STs (over 90%). Also, of those who had IFR titles, 60% had map of the area under their title. 68% of those who had maps had got it updated in the revenue records. Better income (48%), improved quality of life (53%) and control over NTFPs (31%) were among the key gains noted by those who had received land titles.

While a number of NTFP are collected by HHs, value addition and processing measures are primitive: Mahua seed and leaf, Tendu leaf, Bamboo, Sal leaves and mushrooms were most common NTFPs collected by respondent HH. Fruits, honey, spice and herb collection was also reported from Odisha. However, degree of processing of NTFP was limited to de-seeding (such as of Mahua) and sun-drying. In most cases, the collected produce is either sold within villages (50%) and in local markets (39%). In terms of village level collective or group, Self Help Group (SHG) emerged as most common form.

Awareness of Community Forest Rights (CFR) is high although details of process are not commonly known: Nearly 70% of HHs was aware of Community Forest Rights (CFR). Nearly one-fourth of these informed that their village had applied for CFR although three-fourth of them didn't know the area claimed under CFR by their village. Only 12 % of all respondents were part of CFR claims. The process followed was not known to 32% of HH respondents while others knew some of the processes. Maps and statement of elders were most known evidences (57% knew about them) to support CFR claims.

Other evidences, that respondents were aware of, include Nistar-patrak (33%), Govt. records (24%), fine receipts (21%) and record of customary rights (22%).For verification of claim, 45% reported visit by forest department officials, 27% by revenue department and 2% by tribal welfare department. 38% noted no visits by any officials till the time of baseline.

Knowledge about role of Sub Divisional Level Committee (SDLC) and District Level Committee (DLC) is limited among communities: Nearly 30% of respondents did not know the role of SDLC. Of those who were aware of CFR, 37% knew that SDLC provides information to Gram Sabhas, 19% informed that SDLC raises awareness among forest dwellers about the objectives and procedures as under FRA. Other roles of SDLC known to people, although in varying degrees, are -provide forest and revenue maps and electoral rolls to the Gram Sabha or the resolutions of the concerned Gram Sabha to the Forest Rights Committee (14%); and consolidate maps and details provided by the Gram Sabha (12%).

Further, three major roles of DLC as per respondents are- DLCs provide information to Gram Sabha or FRC (34%); DLCs examine whether all claims, especially those of particularly vulnerable tribal groups, pastoralists and nomadic tribes, have been addressed as per the objectives of the Act (20%); and final review and approval of claims prepared by SDLC (13%).

PANCHAYATI RAJ INSTITUTION (PRI) levelDespite high level of awareness about FRA provisions and procedures, PRIs are largely unable to initiate claim processes: 95% PRI members were aware of FRA and the criteria for filing IFR claim. 85% confirmed holding Gram Sabha for discussing FRA claim and/or preparing village development plan. Others named panchayats and FRCs as spaces to discuss FRA related issues.

Land acquisition

Only 4% of HH respondents (only from Chhattisgarh state) reported land acquisition in the area, primarily for the purposes of water-body, dam and hydro-electric project. 83% of these HHs were not aware of any notices served for land acquisition while others reported that 100-200 people were served notices. Also, about 42% of respondents informed that displaced persons were rehabilitated.

Though 74% of HHs stated to have attended Gram Sabha meetings, only 22% noted any discussion on land alienation, rehabilitation and resettlement in the Gram Sabha meetings. However, this data could not be triangulated.

According to forest officers (Divisional Forest Officer/Deputy Conservator of Forests), forest-land diversion was reported in all the three states, primarily for KV lines, construction, power projects, hydro-electric projects. The Forest Conservation Act, 1980 is the primary reference for forest-land acquisition, compensation and resettlement of affected persons.

6

PRIs are familiar with concept of FRC but they lack clarity on its composition and formation process: High level of awareness was noted among PRI about forming FRC and its prescribed size. However, in terms of its composition and formation process as in amended FRA, awareness levels were very low.

Lack of complete knowledge about processes is a key barrier for PRIs: 39% of PRI members did not know the Individual Forest Rights (IFR) claim process while none of them had clarity about Community Forest Rights (CFR) claim process. Their knowledge regarding evidences to be furnished for IFR/CFR claims as well as steps in application process was rather limited. 37% reported preparing Village Development Plan in Gram Sabha and only one-fourth had issued any transit permit. Only 40% panchayat members noted that their village has control over grazing land and water bodies on forest-land. It must be noted here that only about 42% of panchayat members had undergone orientation training on amended FRA/amended rules for IFR.

As per PRIs, challenges in enhancing people's access to government schemes includes delays and lack of cooperation by government officials, corruption and non-payment of due funds.

Important findings from areas under Panchayats Extension to Scheduled Areas (PESA) Act, 1996

% Respondents

Respondents reporting their villages falls under PESA

40%

Panchayat Members reporting their villages fall under PESA

10%

Panchayat members having information about land diverted for projects, its category, size, names of projects or amount of compensation offered.

00%

Panchayat members reporting plantation by the forest department in their area

54%

Panchayat members received orientation or Information, Education and Communication (IEC) material on land acquisition

6%

Panchayat members aware of their right in case land is diverted for mining projects.

15%

Panchayat members aware that LARR and MMDR bills are pending in parliament for approval.

00%

FRC members aware of PESA 12%

FOREST RIGHTS COMMITTEE (FRC) levelFRC's lack clarity about their roles and functions: The baseline study shows that FRCs have limited idea about their roles and functions. Nearly 50% said their job is to 'save forest', only 14% thought they are supposed to make villagers aware about the FRA, and 7% described their role as 'giving land title to villagers'. Nearly 70% informed that Gram Sabha made arrangement to help villagers in filing their claim.

Systematic coordination between FRC and SDLC is lacking: Nearly half (50%) of FRC members reported that there had been no meeting with SDLC so far while about one third of them informed that there was no fixed schedule for meeting with SDLC. 57% felt that they do not receive timely cooperation of SDLC towards verification of claims. Only 37% of FRC members had access to FRA rules and provisions to make recommendations to SDLC. Similarly, only 34% FRC members confirmed availability of IEC material for awareness generation.

FRCs' are largely unaware of claim processes and other provisions under FRA: Half of the FRC members could not explain the process of verification and rejection of claims. Also, only 11% FRC members were aware of claims under section 3(1) and 3(2) but none of them knew of the details. Of those who were aware, the parameters for verification of claim used were-status of application (whether complete/incomplete); caste certificate; map of land; and whether the claimant HH cultivated land for last three generations. FRCs were also largely unaware of the agency to which claims should be sent after verification and agency that should issue transit permits for NTFPs. More than three fourth of CFR members were not aware of rejection rates.

Non-Government Organisation (NGO) levelPartner NGOs work on a range of issues including water, forest rights, livelihood, health, education, women empowerment, child protection, sanitation and food security. Public meetings, rallies, public hearings, meetings with and submissions to officials, training and workshop at gram panchayat level, and use of ICT materials for awareness generation are common strategies that partner NGOs adopt to work on forest right issues. Only two (NSVK in Jharkhand and NSSS in Chhattisgarh) out of the 11 NGO partners works on mining issues. These two NGOs and RCDC Odisha also made advocacy efforts for passing of LARR and MMDR Bills. NSVK's advocacy efforts led to the formation of forest protection committees in 45 villages for land rights. seven out of the 11 NGOs felt that the OIN project has helped them take up new activities at community level.

7

CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATIONSThe baseline report provides the following recommendations towards meeting the programme objectives:

At the community level, awareness and training need to focus on provisions under amended FRA, application and follow up processes for IFR and CFR claims, available social security provisions and process to access them. Women, STs and other vulnerable groups with low access to information and knowledge, need to be prioritise for target groups under the programme.

Intensive training and hand holding support is required at the level of panchayats for them to undertake preparatory work (preparation of list of groups of hamlets/habitations, unrecorded or un-surveyed settlements or forest villages, formally not part of any revenue or forest village record within its boundaries etc) and to process Gram sabha approvals and submission of claims. At the same time, panchayat members need more training and support towards formation of FRC; preparing village development plan, issuance of transit permits, and coordination with SDLC. Greater support towards claiming CFR and using section 3(1) and 3(2) for development work is a definite area of work with PRIs.

FRC members also need to be oriented about their roles and responsibilities, approval process for IFR and CFR, issue of transit permits as well as of special provisions under PESA.

Overall, the baseline findings reiterate OIN's emphasis on strengthening people's ability to exercise their rights over natural resources that directly impact their livelihood. The fact that 86% of the respondents count on NTFP as secondary source of income is indicative of the role natural resources play in household economy of forest dependent communities. The baseline also brings up the barriers people and community-based institutions, including local governance institutions face in realizing their legal rights.

As reiterated by almost all categories of respondents of this baseline, 'knowing' about the law is not enough. Capacities need to be enhanced, at the levels of right holders and duty bearers, to follow the prescribed processes with greater precision and accountability. OIN's strategy of strengthening community level alliances, capacity building of stakeholders and advocacy for improved implementation and accountability is likely to bring desired results in programme areas.

8

Oxfam India, 4th and 5th Floor, Shriram Bharatiya Kala Kendra, 1, Copernicus Marg, New Delhi 110001

Tel: +91 (0) 11 4653 8000 www.oxfamindia.org

Oxfam India is a member of a global confederation of 17 Oxfams and is registered as a company under section 25 of the Indian Company Law.

Author(s): Aniruddha Brahmachari, Ritesh Laddha, Shailesh Acharya

With contribution from: Sharmistha Bose, Vanita Suneja

The authors are grateful for the insights and words of encouragement by Nisha Agrawal, Ranu Bhogal and Shaik Anwar.

Oxfam India Copy Right – September 2015

This publication is copyright but the text may be used free of charge for the purposes of advocacy, campaigning, education, and research, provided that the source is acknowledged in full. The copyright holder requests that all such use be registered with them for impact assessment purposes. For copying in any other circumstances, permission must be secured.E-mail: mela@oxfamindia.org

Disclaimer: Oxfam India Monitoring Evaluation Learning Case Study series disseminates the finding of the work in progress to encourage the exchange of ideas about development issues. The findings, interpretations, and conclusion expressed in this paper are entirely for learning purposes. They do not necessarily represent the views of Oxfam India.

Oxfam India, a fully independent Indian organization, is a member of an international confederation of 17 organizations. The Oxfams are rights-based organizations, which fight poverty and injustice by linking grassroots interventions to local, national, and global policy developments.